Offence: Speeding / Totting up penalty points

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Carl Millar represented Mr W before Wrexham Magistrates Court.

4 penalty points were imposed for the offence of speeding, which meant that Mr W now had 13 penalty points on his driving licence. Exceptional hardship was advanced and was found due to Mr W’s personal circumstances.

Mr W is a service manager who travels to 46 buildings throughout the Lancashire area. As part of his role he is required to travel around each site and undertake spot checks. His contract of employment would have been terminated by his employer if he were disqualified for the minimum period of six months. It was accepted that a driving licence is crucial for his job role. Furthermore, the Court accepted that he would struggle to pay his mortgage as his wife only worked part-time and therefore exceptional hardship was found for himself and his wife. Obviously, Mr W was delighted with the outcome as he was not disqualified from driving.

Offence: Failing to Provide a Specimen of Breath for Analysis

Defence: Technical Defence

Mr O was charged with an offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis.

Millars Solicitors were able to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service that Mr O had been incorrectly charged, and the offence should have been one of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis whilst in charge of a motor vehicle, rather than driving a motor vehicle. The Crown Prosecution Service accepted the argument and the charge was changed to reflect the lesser offence.

We managed to persuade the Court to impose 10 penalty points on Mr O’s driving licence instead of a driving disqualification. Naturally Mr O was delighted with the outcome as he faced a minimum period of disqualification of one year, up to a maximum of 3 years.

Place: Nottingham Magistrates Court

Offence: Speeding / Totting up 12 penalty points or more

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Mr K received 4 penalty points for the offence of speeding. At the time of the offence he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence and therefore he faced a minimum period of disqualification of six months under the totting up provisions.

We advanced exceptional hardship and we are pleased to confirm that exceptional hardship was found in the circumstances.
The impact of a driving disqualification would mean that Mr K would have lost his job and therefore would not be in a position to maintain his mortgage payments. This would have had a negative impact upon his family whereby his daughter would have needed to have been taken out of private school.

In the circumstances, Mr K was delighted with the outcome.

Offence: Speeding / Totting up 12 penalty points or more

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Messrs Millars Solicitors represented Mr B before Folkestone Magistrates Court on the aforementioned date. Mr B received 6 penalty points for driving at 100mph in a 70mph speed restriction area. At the time of the offence he already had 6 penalty points endorsed on his driving licence.

We are pleased that exceptional hardship was found in the circumstances. We had managed to obtain a letter from Mr B’s employer which summarised that a driving disqualification of six months would result in a loss of his job. This would have an impact upon his ability to pay the mortgage on his house where he lived with his wife, and his ability to care for his elderly mother.

Mr B was not disqualified from driving in the circumstances and was naturally delighted with the outcome.

Offence: Speeding / Totting up penalty points

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Carl Millar represented Mr S before Northallerton Magistrates Court in respect of totting up 12 penalty points or more, whereby Mr S faced a minimum period of disqualification of 6 months under the totting up provisions. At the time of this further offence Mr S already had 10 penalty points on his driving licence. The Court imposed a further 3 points and therefore he now had 13 points on his driving licence.

Carl advanced exceptional hardship explaining the consequences of disqualification would mean that his position of employment would become untenable. The collateral damage following on from this would be that there potentially could be a loss of jobs to other employees in his place of work due to the nature of his job. Mr S worked as a contracts manager for a shop fitting company in various locations up and down the country.

Mr S’s house was subject to a mortgage and he had three children. His partner did not work and his family relied solely on his income. The impact of a disqualification and subsequent loss of job would mean that his partner and children could potentially be made homeless if his house were to be repossessed. Thankfully, exceptional hardship was found in the circumstances.

Offence: Drunk in Charge of a Motor Vehicle

Defence: Mitigation

Millars Solicitors represented Mr H who appeared before Salisbury Magistrates Court.

Mr H faced a potential disqualification of up to 12 months. Mitigation was advanced and we managed to persuade the Court to endorse penalty points instead whereby Mr H received 10 penalty points on his driving licence instead of being disqualified from driving. Naturally, Mr H was delighted with the outcome.

Offence: Totting up / Exceptional Hardship

Defence: Exceptional Hardship argument

Millars Solicitors recently represented Mr H who faced disqualification for a minimum period of six months under the totting up provisions

Mr H already had 9 points on his driving licence when the matter went before the Court. He was travelling at a very high speed that could have resulted in a disqualification of 56 days for the offence alone, of travelling at 110mph in a 70mph speed restriction area.

Millars Solicitors persuaded the Court to disqualify Mr H for the offence alone of speeding whereupon he received a 25 day period of disqualification. Mr H was concerned that the Court may not find exceptional hardship in his circumstances and this was a preferred option. Naturally, Mr H was delighted with the outcome as he avoided the minimum period of disqualification under the totting up provisions of 6 months.

Offence: Failing to Furnish Information

Defence: Persuading the Crown Prosecution Service to discontinue the case

Millars Solicitors represented Miss W who appeared before Blackpool Magistrates Court for the offence of failing to furnish information whereby she would receive between 6-8 penalty points or be disqualified for the offence.

We were able to persuade the Court to discontinue proceedings against the defendant on the basis that she accepted the originating offence of speeding. Miss W’s case was that she did receive the Notice of Intended Prosecution, signed, dated and returned it in the post. The Police say that they did not receive the returned Notice of Intended Prosecution and therefore a not guilty plea was entered. The Crown Prosecution Service accepted Miss W’s position and that offence was discontinued.

Offence: Speeding

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr E, who faced a disqualification period of up to 56 days for travelling at 108mph in a 70mph speed restriction area.

Mitigation was presented to the Court in an effort to try and persuade them to not disqualify at all and, instead, give Mr E penalty points. The Court were persuaded by the argument and imposed 6 penalty points instead of a driving ban. Mr E required his car to commute to the salon that he works, and also to convey his equipment with him. The court accepted the arguments put forward and Mr E was delighted that he was not disqualified.

Offence: Drunk in Charge of a Motor Vehicle

Defence: Mitigation

Millars Solicitors were instructed by Mr H who pleaded guilty to the offence of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.

Mr H faced a potential disqualification period of up to 12 months, and a possible custodial sentence.

Powerful mitigation was presented on Mr H’s behalf. The Court were persuaded by the arguments put forward and Mr H received 10 penalty points instead of a driving disqualification. It was advanced at Court that any period of disqualification would be devastating to Mr H. His position in his job would become untenable as he relied upon his driving licence to travel. Mr H was the main income provider within his household and he had real concerns that his mortgage payments would not be met and therefore would face repossession proceedings. The Magistrates were persuaded by the argument and imposed penalty points instead of a ban.